Article #2

Article # 2

"Differentiated Physical Learning Environment"

By Alisha Thiessen

Alisha Thiessen (2012), author of Differentiated Physical Learning Environment, starts her research paper by introducing her research questions which are “Is there a correlation between student academic growth in mathematics and a differentiated physical environment within the grade five classroom?” and “Does the use of a differentiated physical environment in the grade five classroom affect the student attitude to the academic subject?” (Thiessen, 2012, pg. 2).

After discussing her research questions, Thiessen then provides a definition of terms list and defines the terms differentiation, learning style and physical environment (Thiessen, 2012, pg. 2). Next, Thiessen discusses literature she has reviewed regarding differentiation and learning styles and refers to article by Tomlinson (2003), author of many books and articles regarding differentiation including Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom. Thiessen also refers to Searson & Dunn (2001), who wrote The learning-style teaching model.

Once Thiessen reviews the literature on differentiation and learning styles, she then considers the methods where she revisits her research questions along with her participants which consist of 47 fifth grade students. Next, Thiessen discusses the instrumentation which is called “The Learning Style Inventory” and based on the Dunn and Dunn model (1995). Then, Thiessen looks at the procedure and explains that the researchers class was the control group and that the “independent variable was the physical learning environment and the dependent variable was the difference in scores on the pre and post- math unit tests”.

Thiessen then explains the results which includes the data analysis and findings and then goes into the discussion which shows that “this research study found that there was no statistical evidence of greater academic achievement for those students who were a part of a differentiated physical environment” (Thiessen, 2012, pg. 16).

After the discussion section, Thiessen goes into her summary and conclusion which brings her to her implications and suggest that although there was not statistical evidence changes in grades, the research is still valuable because “teachers can use the evidence from this study in other subject areas to help students increase their enjoyment of education” (Thiessen, 2012, pg. 17).

Thiessen then talks about the limitations and says that “ideally having one teacher teaching both classes would have helped control for this variable in this study” (Thiessen, 2012, pg. 18). Thiessen also explains that space and money were additional limitations to her study.

Thiessen ends by discussing further study ideas and suggest future studies could look at the impact differentiated physical environment would have on other subject areas and other grade levels (Thiessen, 2012, pg. 18).

                                                            Reflection

            After reviewing Thiessen's research paper I was very impressed with how she organized her paper. For instance, she started the paper by introducing the topic of differentiation and the need for differentiation the classroom. Then, she clearly wrote her two research questions so the reader knew exactly what Thiessen was looking for in her research. I think Thiessen did a great job at defining the terms differentiation, learning profile and physical environment so that the reader was aware of what she was talking about throughout her paper. I really liked that Thiessen used a number of different sources to guide her framework for her study such as Tomlinson’s (2003) text on differentiation in the classroom. I also liked the idea of using a pre-and post-test as a way to study the effects physical environment had on differentiation. Although Thiessen did not find any statistical evidence that backed her original claims, Thiessen did a great job at discussing what she would have done differently and providing future research study ideas surrounding this topic.

Reference

Thiessen, A. (2012). Differentiated Physical Learning Environment. Pro Rege. Retrieved from

http://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021

Article #1

Article #1

"Differentiated Instruction: A Research Basis"

by Pearl Subban

According to Subban (2006), author of Differentiated Instruction: A Research Basis, “the homogeneity of yesteryear has been replaced by widespread diversity, however in many contexts teachers do not appear to have adjusted their methods to keep abreast of these trends” which is a problem since high school students learn different and teachers need to be catering to individual student’s needs (Subban, 2006, pg. 935).

Subban begins the article by discussing the search procedure for her research and explains that she only uses current research articles dealing with differentiated instruction over the past 25 years. Once Subban introduces her search procedure she then explains the context and purpose of this study which is to “synthesize the research and the rationale underpinning of the differentiated instruction model” (Subban, 2006, pg. 936).

Next, Subban considers conceptual frameworks. Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory of Learning is the first framework discussed which is “based on the premise that the individual learner must be studied within a particular social and cultural context” and suggests that “education in an ongoing process and not a product” (pg. 936).

Another conceptual framework Subban discusses is Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development. The Zone of Proximal Development is a key point in Vygotsky’s theory and it “refers to a level of development attained when learners engage in social behavior” (pg. 936). Subban explains that the zone is defined as “the distance between the actual development level and level of potential development” (pg. 936).

After reviewing Vygotsky’s work, Subban writes about the implications of Vygotzky’s Theory and explains that Vygotsky’s Theory will be used as a framework for her study regarding education in the 21^st century (Subban, 2006, pg. 937). Subban explains that Vygotsky’s Theory “sees the student-teacher relationship as collaborative, with the learning experience becoming reciprocal” and Subban aims to explore the practice of differentiated instruction ideal as a educational tool to assist the learning progression (pg. 937).

Next, Subban goes into a research rationale supporting the need for a new educational model (pg. 937). Subban feels like a new educational model is needed because the current education system does not address the needs of all students (pg. 938). Then, Subban moves on to addressing differences among students and explains that a “contemporary classrooms should accept and build on the basis that learners are all essentially different” (pg. 938). Subban, then stresses the dangers of teaching to the middle and suggests that teachers need to be aware of how to react to the diversity of 21st century classrooms and not use the “one-size-fits-all” model (pg. 938). Subban believes that “ignoring differences may result in some students falling behind, losing motivation, and failing to succeed” (pg. 938).

Furthermore, Subban looks at brain research and tells the reader that good instruction inside the classroom looks to use the brain proficiently, “to process, store and retrieve information” (pg. 939). After discussing brain research, Subban explores different learning styles (pg. 939). Subban writes that learning styles are so important because “being able to identify a student’s learning style and teach to accommodate these can assist students to achieve better results academically and improve their attitudes towards learning” (pg. 939). Then, Subban considers the idea of multiple intelligences and explains that generating prospects for every student, by enhancing the classroom through numerous methods and evaluation forms, advances students and conveys their abilities (pg. 939).

Moreover, Subban moves into differentiated instruction and responding to the needs of different learners (pg. 940). According to Subban in order to differentiate instruction teachers must recognize various students’ upbringings, readiness stages, educational profiles, languages and interest (pg. 940). Differentiation is a great way to focus on learner differences and makes teachers alter their thinking from teaching curriculum to making adjustments to meet the needs of to individual student’s (pg. 940). Next, Subban considers the idea of engaging students and suggests that understanding student’s differences will help teachers recognize student’s strong points and help students move ahead (pg. 941).

Furthermore, Subban discusses the importance of catering to student’s interest, learning profile and readiness (pg. 941). Subban explains that by focusing on student’s interest, educational profile and readiness level this will “allow teachers to plan their content and process and support diverse learning styles” (pg. 941). Next, Subban looks at research studies supporting the use of differentiated instruction by going through a list of a number of up-to-date studies that illustrate positive results after using differentiated instruction (pg. 942).

Finally, Subban discusses her theoretical framework and summarizes what was gleaned from his research (pg. 944). Subban ends by saying “this study further takes cognizance of the tenets supporting to move to differentiate instruction, including contemporary student diversity, the dangers of teaching to the middle, research into the workings of the human brain, investigations into individual learning styles and the theories of multiple intelligences” (pg. 944).

Reflection

The article entitled Differentiated Instruction: A Research Basis by Subban (2006) was a very in-depth article surrounding the issue of differentiation in the classroom. Subban started the article by stating the topic and problem very clearly. Subban also made sure to include current research that was no more than 25 years old. I liked that Subban used a conceptual framework such as Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory and Zone of Proximal Development to guide her research. I believe using Vygotsky’s framework gave Subban a lot of credibility in her writing. In addition, Subban’s research paper was very organized and she used a number of different headings and sub-headings to help keep the reader on track. Moreover, Subban implemented a lot of great resources to help the reader find further research dealing with the issue of differentiation. Subban ends the article by summarizing her main points and stresses the importance of a differentiated classroom.

Reference

Subban, P. (2006). Differentiated Instruction: A Research Basis, International Education Journal, 7.

Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ854351.pdf